A CICERONIAN LAWYER'S MUSINGS ON LAW, PHILOSOPHY, CURRENT AFFAIRS, LITERATURE, HISTORY AND LIVING LIFE SECUNDUM NATURAM
Wednesday, January 24, 2018
The Pretensions of Art
Can a cat be an artist? Is the work pictured above, produced by a cat, a work of art? What is art?
The seemingly endless series of award shows we encounter each year, for films and film actors, TV shows and TV actors, plays and actors in plays, music and musicians, makes me wonder about art, or what we think is art, and about people in general.
As to people in general--people, clearly, like to win awards. Some people, it seems, like to award other people for doing certain things and for how they do those things. Some people also apparently enjoy watching some people give awards to other people. Rather disconcertingly, to me, the awards are awarded by those who themselves compete for the awards and are sometimes given them; otherwise by those involved in the "industry" whose products are the subject matter of the awards, in one way or another. There is, inevitably, a degree of self-congratulation, self-regard if not self-love, involved in award shows as a result; involved in the awards themselves, in fact, and the entire machinery by which awards are made.
As to what we think is art, an argument can be made that it is whatever we think it is. This isn't a very helpful definition, but to an extent it's the only accurate one. This isn't necessarily to say de gustibus non est disputandum. It's merely a recognition that we say what art is and whether something is art, though we're often at a loss to say why "it" is art and not something else. Philosophers, of course, have been busily telling us what art is for quite some time. But it seems that few, if any, philosophers are art critics or connoisseurs. At least, I know of none.
Explaining what art is, in abstract, doesn't seem of much help in assessing the quality of a work of art. For example, except when used in an analogy or as a metaphor, "art" usually refers to what is involved in creating a painting, drawing, or other forms of visual expression, music or literature and the product created. It doesn't follow that each painting, all music and all literature are works of art, however; do we call everything we hear or see or read of this nature a "work of art"? It seems to me we don't. Or perhaps all such things are art, in which case we may identify certain art as "bad" art and other art as "good" art. "Bad" art then is art nonetheless.
But if a painting is art, isn't the pictured painting at the top of this post art, though made by a cat? If not, it would seem to follow that art is necessarily something created by human beings, unless we maintain that certain animals in addition to humans can make art, but a cat may not. According to the invaluable Internet, animals in addition to cats have produced paintings--various primates, a dolphin, a rabbit, an elephant and others.
It could be maintained that non-human animals don't really create art as humans do; painting animals capable of doing so physically have been trained to use brushes, for example. But it's hardly unusual for a human artist to undergo training, isn't it? It can't be training in itself that distinguishes art we make from paintings by other animals. Can we make the good old instinct argument-animals do things unthinkingly, by instinct, while we do not? It seems odd to speak of an instinct to paint, though.
There can be no question that we're more able than other animals to do certain things. But we may not be quite as extraordinary as we've thought ourselves to be. In making art we interact with our environment in certain ways, sometimes with a purpose in mind, sometimes without a specific, well-defined purpose but for a reason nonetheless. So, we may do so as a way of expressing a certain feeling, or because we derive satisfaction from it. Other animals interact with their environment as well. We've begun to understand that other animals are capable of self-recognition, can use signs, even solve problems, seemingly. Why shouldn't they be capable of art?
Pretension is something peculiarly human; and so we have award shows. We've always indulged in it, and the belief that other animals exist merely for our use is as old at least as Genesis, and likely far older. Perhaps there should be award shows for animal artists, actors. But being without pretension, they wouldn't be inclined to watch, judge or participate in them.
Labels:
Animals,
Art,
Award Shows,
Genesis
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment